Jump to content

What is the one true faith (or lack thereof)?

killbot1000
 Share

Which is the one true faith (or lack thereof)?  

176 members have voted

  1. 1. Which is the one true faith (or lack thereof)?

    • Atheism
      55
    • Christianity
      47
    • Buddhism
      10
    • Islam
      16
    • Hindu
      5
    • Taoism
      3
    • Shinto
      1
    • Agnosticism
      11
    • Zoroastrianism
      0
    • Scientology
      3
    • Mormonism
      2
    • Sikhism
      1
    • Jainism
      0
    • Judaism
      6
    • Jedi
      16

448 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

joe75
joe75
Posted
Posted
Well, I don't know what world you live in, but you for one cannot honestly claim that all of your wise "knowledge" is devoid of fiction.

 

Not devoid of fiction, but devoid of myth and folklore. Fiction is for pretend and imagination and one can take from it what they want. Facts or nonfiction are for learning and knowledge. :compress:

Ouch
Ouch
Posted
Posted

Actually knowledge can be defined as the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject - theory isn't fact. So knowledge does not necessarily have to be born of fact. Quantum mechanics is an area of scientific theory in which people can be considered knowledgeable.

killbot1000
killbot1000
Posted
  • Author
Posted
Actually knowledge can be defined as the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject - theory isn't fact. So knowledge does not necessarily have to be born of fact. Quantum mechanics is an area of scientific theory in which people can be considered knowledgeable.

 

Theories are made up of many facts, it is not a sliding scale in which theory is less of a fact than fact, only that a theory contains in some cases millions of threads, and these threads are facts, not the theory itself.

wildcat69410
wildcat69410
Posted
Posted
Theories are made up of many facts, it is not a sliding scale in which theory is less of a fact than fact, only that a theory contains in some cases millions of threads, and these threads are facts, not the theory itself.

 

Just because a theory is made up of facts, doesn't necessarily make it a fact. The theory itself is a conclusion of the facts, which may or may not be correct. For example, the geo-centric earth model was based on the fact that the sun reached the zenith of the sky at a certain time, and the planets followed a certain path through the sky. Therefore, the theory stated that the earth is the center of the universe.

 

But we know that not to be true, so theories really aren't facts, there just conclusions based off facts.

bwhsh8r
bwhsh8r
Posted
Posted
Knowledge comes from facts not fiction :)

 

 

lol, i wasnt talking about the God stuff, but if you look at like the commandments and stuff... that stuff is just good guidelines, i sort of look at the Bible as explinations of complicated things for ignorant people who could not figure out the true awnser. That and alot of the stuff is common curtosy and stuff like that... to say that everything in the Bible is fiction would be far from true (although the basis of it may be... )

Ouch
Ouch
Posted
Posted

OK so since religion requires faith, and faith defies proof then we could obviously argue in circles from now until the end of the world and make absolutely no progress.

 

I guess a more important question is whether we think it is possible for all these different faiths to live in harmony in the future? From a christian perspective the prophecy is that the world will simply become more and more chaotic until Christ returns. Of course the aetheists among us probably see that last statement as the cause of the problem itself.

 

Is religion to blame for the worlds problems - i really doubt it, if people couldn't kill each other in the name of God, i'm sure they'd find some other excuse.

gwprod12
gwprod12
Posted
Posted

I see little problem with people waiting for the end of the world. It's when they decide to hasten it themselves that I get antsy.

 

Religion is just like anything else. Skin color, sexual preference, fashionable/unfashionable, nerd/jock, democrat/republican, etc.

 

If everyone just let everyone else do their own {censored}, everyone would be much happier. It's when you start becoming the thought/ethics police that life gets miserable.

killbot1000
killbot1000
Posted
  • Author
Posted
I see little problem with people waiting for the end of the world. It's when they decide to hasten it themselves that I get antsy.

 

Religion is just like anything else. Skin color, sexual preference, fashionable/unfashionable, nerd/jock, democrat/republican, etc.

 

If everyone just let everyone else do their own {censored}, everyone would be much happier. It's when you start becoming the thought/ethics police that life gets miserable.

 

 

Good point! :police: I have a bit of difficulty with that sometimes heheh.

Ouch
Ouch
Posted
Posted
It's when you start becoming the thought/ethics police that life gets miserable.

 

Hmm thats an interesting theory but if there weren't any thought/ethics police as you put it then society wouldn't function, regardless of whether God exists. Heres my argument:

 

For a people to live in harmony there has to be, and there are, certain moral boundaries that society as a whole says cannot be crossed - yet it seems more and more that those are being undermined in the drive towards relativism, the new global religion. Now consider the origin of that unified sense of morality - as most people have the same inbuilt awareness of right vs wrong it must have a common source. Where does that come from? Being a person of faith i say it is given to us by the same God who created us. If you don't subscribe to creationism then either you believe it's genetic/biological or you think it was some kind of emergent property of the development of civilisation - in which case the religious principles thought to be so harmful to harmonious living, must be based on the same morality that we developed naturally to enable civilisation to function. (hence the similar moral themes between global religions). By this argument religion becomes natures method of preventing a society from destroying itself by imposing limits on what a person may or may not do.

Now here's the crux of the matter - If we start picking and choosing which of those "religious" principles no longer apply to modern society then surely we are in danger of undermining society itself. Therefore you need the thought/ethics police to demonstrate a sense of morality that does not change - whether you believe in God or not.

 

I close with this: most people seems to believe that the liberalisation of society is a healthy thing, but not all progress is a good thing. One can move forward without necessarily going in the right direction.

gwprod12
gwprod12
Posted
Posted

Ethics and laws are different things. It's one thing to say you cant have sex with you dog, it's another to say you shouldnt want to.

 

This also, is another falacious argument: That the origin of the laws of property and trespass were developed by, or as part of religion. Social animals (including humans) originate the rules of civilization and the social contract as part of their socialization. When two or more people or animals come together to create a society, rules must be hammered out.

 

There is simply social conduct and antisocial conduct.

 

While it is true that all progress isnt good, you very often come to an impasse, where you either must move in some direction, or stick your head in the sand.

wildcat69410
wildcat69410
Posted
Posted
While it is true that all progress isnt good, you very often come to an impasse, where you either must move in some direction, or stick your head in the sand.

 

But have we reached that impasse? As much as one can argue that conservatism is forcing society to "stick its head in the sand", one can argue that liberalism is pushing for too much unnecessary "progress". This impasse you speak of isn't an absolute, but rather a difference in perspectives. However, to simply use this difference as a motive to push for progress of all kinds is rediculous.

 

If you want to live in a society without a "moral police", then you would most likely end up in a society without a set standard of morals. As important as it is to create a set of rules, it is equally as important to set up a set of morals from which to live from. A society without morals, is a society with rules but yet no moralic impetus to follow those rules. Therefore, the only impetus to follow those set rules are the penalties that are enforced against them.

 

Clearly, the only enforcement harsh enough to deter criminality to low low levels, are usually extrordinarily harsh. Therefore, logically, we have two choices. Either harsh penalties, or a set of morals, "enforced" by the "moral police" as you call them. My logic may be a little out there, but I believe there is a clear connection between the two. I know that gwprod is against capital punishment, so I thought the conclusion I came to would be a little interesting.

 

Feel free though gwprod, as I'm sure you need no encouragement :spam: , to pick away at my logic.

wildcat69410
wildcat69410
Posted
Posted
Yeah... I DONT want to live in a society with a set standard of morals. Laws yes, morals no.

 

But does that mean that a society without morals means a society with severe punishment? I only bring this up because of your position on Capital Punishment, and how it sort of contradicts.

 

Also, aren't some laws based upon morals? And so won't these laws simply become extensions of morals? Society is inherently based upon some set of morals, whether they be right or wrong. One of the characteristics of being human is our moral thought. We cannot live in a society without some form of morals.

killbot1000
killbot1000
Posted
  • Author
Posted

All I'm trying to say is that I don't think that morality is based on religion, I think we can all safely say that its based on reason, and that everybody's reasoning is different, we don't have to have a universal set of morals in order to BE moral.

wildcat69410
wildcat69410
Posted
Posted
All I'm trying to say is that I don't think that morality is based on religion, I think we can all safely say that its based on reason, and that everybody's reasoning is different, we don't have to have a universal set of morals in order to BE moral.

 

If morals were based upon individual reason, which they aren't, then being moral is an impossibility. In order to define someone, or something, as moral or immoral, you must have a clearly defined set of "morals" from which to judge. As reason isn't a constant, morals would then be subject to radical change, which would completely destroy the basis of morals in general.

 

To say that a strict set of morals is necessary isn't exactly right either, but a clearly defined set is important. Plus, changing morals becomes one hell of an issue, which eventually reaches the impasse that gwprod mentioned.

Jeezoflip
Jeezoflip
Posted
Posted
If morals were based upon individual reason, which they aren't, then being moral is an impossibility. In order to define someone, or something, as moral or immoral, you must have a clearly defined set of "morals" from which to judge. As reason isn't a constant, morals would then be subject to radical change, which would completely destroy the basis of morals in general.

 

To say that a strict set of morals is necessary isn't exactly right either, but a clearly defined set is important. Plus, changing morals becomes one hell of an issue, which eventually reaches the impasse that gwprod mentioned.

 

LOL!

killbot1000
killbot1000
Posted
  • Author
Posted
If morals were based upon individual reason, which they aren't, then being moral is an impossibility. In order to define someone, or something, as moral or immoral, you must have a clearly defined set of "morals" from which to judge. As reason isn't a constant, morals would then be subject to radical change, which would completely destroy the basis of morals in general.

 

To say that a strict set of morals is necessary isn't exactly right either, but a clearly defined set is important. Plus, changing morals becomes one hell of an issue, which eventually reaches the impasse that gwprod mentioned.

People have "radically" changed their morals many times throughout the past based on the times, and theres nothing wrong with that, it really is based on reason, and heres why:

 

Our society for example, before birth control, sex was seen as something that you should only do if you're married, now with the advent of birth control pills and condoms, that strict moral principle becomes more lax, whether you like it or not, simply because people don't have to worry as much about the consequences.

 

People used to not eat pork because it was dangerous to do so, when that no longer becomes the case, people then use their reasoning, and determine that it is now OK to eat pork (for the most part). So people eat it.

 

People also eventually figured out that families of royal blood were not actually ordained by God, and when their king/queen stepped on their toes, they fought back and then you have the French Revolution, there was once a time where the regular citizens would never stand up to their monarch.

 

However, things like murder and rape are almost universal because theres pretty much never a really good reason to do those things ( I wont say never, because I'm sure theres an instance or two).

 

If one looks at something like Christianity its a criticism of the time, almost everything thats considered "good" in Christianity is really just a satire on Rome, it addresses all of Romes problems, and most of the New testament is in the context of Rome. The way I see it, we don't have all of Romes problems, so we shouldn't listen to everything the bible says, (my reasoning anyway).

 

But seriously, Morals are not universal, no matter how much we want them to be, there will be a day where our morals we hold today will be irrelevant, just as has happened all throughout history, were no different, were living history, and were not the end all and see all when it comes to morality.

 

If you don't think morality is humanly/self-defined then you are deluding yourself, use your brain and think about it, and you'll find that it really is defined by us, why else would most of us follow these rules otherwise?

james2mart
james2mart
Posted
Posted

Hey guys! Been a while!

 

I'm actually taking a class on ethics right now. The basic consensus among ethicists is that there are two levels of morals - global morals and personal morals. It is easy to determine what is personal and what is global. Abstinence before marriage is personal, while Rape, murder, incest, etc. is global.

 

There are certain things that we should never do (this relies on Kant's Categorical Imperative) and things that should be done if they are virtuous (Aristotalian Virtue). Morals are based entirely upon reason.

 

Christians (like myself) believe that morals are instilled in who we are, and we should seek guidance on what is right and what is wrong in the Bible. People that are not religious can have morals, too. Christians believe that everyone is created in God's image and everyone has basic moral stances. They can vary, and often do. If you look at the bible AS A WHOLE (don't just single out one instance of pork-banning) it contains a very similar moral set for many many people. It's kind of hard to look at a moral that the bible talks about and say "hey, thats stupid and unreasonable."

 

Murder, Lie, Cheat, Steal? All bad, and the bible says so.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...